BSTS Newsletter No. 74 - Part 8 - The Shroud of Turin Website

More documents

Recommendations

Info

as “the best and most updated essay”, he could also quote what the author writes: “Such asource would be surely interesting, even if it introduces dark implications and shadows thatare not easy to dissipate. I refer in particular to its tradition - nineteenth-century transcription -but also to its nature. In fact, in origin it was part of a cartulary, on whose typology thedoctrine expresses very discordant judgments. It is sure, however, that the impossibility of theexamination of the extrinsic characters of the document is objectively a limit. I think,however, that there could be some interpolations in it. Among other things, it seems to me, asan example, that the intitulatio, in which the author Theodore Comneno Ducas defineshimself «Theodore Angelus», does not correspond to the title used by the family in thatperiod, while, on the contrary, it is completely correct that the title of Despot of Epirus is notattributed to his brother, as it would be anachronistic for that age. Regarding the historicalcontent of the document, it seems to me that it can be asserted that it becomes partly harmonicin the context of the reactions to the excesses of the Crusaders in Constantinople, that just inthat arc of time also provoked the intervention of Innocent III” 68 (68). Therefore, it could beworthwhile trying to obtain a deeper analysis of the origin of the Chartularium.Naturally, then, since for Nicolotti it is sure that Otho de La Roche never possessed theShroud 69 (69), there is no proof of his return to France 70 (70) and the Shroud of Besançon is“quite a late fake” 71 (71), he then ridicules the “arranged theories, that are contrived in orderto save this and that”. And he continues: “According to Alessandro Piana 72 (72), for example,Otho would have taken the true Shroud (of Turin) to France and from it he would have drawna copy to give to the archbishop (of Besançon). As usual, the documents are lacking: it wasenough for Piana to find a painted Shroud in the castle of Ray-sur-Saône in order to imaginethat the family that inhabited it was also in charge of the fabrication of the Besançon Shroud”73 (73).In fact Piana did not state anything as a certainty, he spoke about “a new clue” in supportof the “most probable hypothesis” 74 (74). Nicolotti, after having specified that the foldsargument is “pseudo-reasoning” 75 (75), maintains that Piana wishes to push by force theShroud refolded into 48 layers into a casket that is too small: “It is enough to imagine that therefolded sheet has been a bit pressed within the box and forced to enter in it, Piana says” 76(76).We read Piana’s text for comparison: “The dimensions of the casket are too small for theShroud refolded into 48, it is therefore probable that the Cloth was positioned inside likely68 G.M. ZACCONE, La Sindone, storia di un’immagine, quoted, pp. 62-63.69 A. NICOLOTTI, op. cit. p. 118.70 A. NICOLOTTI, op. cit. p. 121.71 A. NICOLOTTI, op. cit. p. 118.72 Nicolotti does not supply information on Alessandro Piana, who is a biologist, author of historical publications.See Shroud Newsletter 65, June 2007, pp. 6-7 and Shroud Newsletter 66, December 2007, pp. 9-31; A. PIANA“Missing years” of the Holy Shroud, in Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Scientific approach tothe Acheiropoietos Images, Frascati 4-6 May 2010, a cura di P. DI LAZZARO, Ed. ENEA, Frascati (Roma) 2010,pp. 95-102.73 A. NICOLOTTI, op. cit. p. 119.74 A. PIANA, Sindone, gli anni perduti. Da Constantinople a Lirey: nuove prove, Sugarco Edizioni, Milano 2007,p. 65.75 A. NICOLOTTI, I Templari e la Sindone, storia di un falso, quoted, p. 122. Nicolotti quotes the invitation of thetextile expert Mechthild Flury-Lemberg “not to give an inadequate weight to the presence of these folds” and infootnote p. 167 he reminds us that the Shroud remained rolled up for centuries on a cylinder until “1993”, whichshould be 1998. In the book on the Mandylion on p. 47 he indicates 1998 correctly.76 A. NICOLOTTI, op. cit. p. 123.10
practicing a light distortion regarding the folding obtained” 77 (77). Forced, here, there is onlyNicolotti’s thought, who on the several proposed theories to explain the arrival of the Shroudin France, comments: “In the absence of serious historical proof, the sindonologists haveheaped up non-verified hypotheses, gratuitous deductions and apodictic affirmations oftenbased on material and also rough errors” 78 (78).Another enlightening example of the way Nicolotti argues is his description of arepresentation, often cited by the sindonologists, and his reasons for asserting that it hasnothing to do with the Shroud. This is the miniature in Codex Pray in the National Library ofBudapest (fig. 3 on the right) that goes back to 1192-1195 79 (79) and can be compared with ananalogous miniature in the contemporary Psalter of Ingeborg (fig. 3 on the left).In the upper scene of the folio 28r of Codex Pray we can see the unction of Christ laid outafter the crucifixion on a sheet. The inspiration from the Shroud is obvious (fig. 4): the bodyis completely naked and the hands cross to cover the lower abdomen. The thumbs are notvisible. On the forehead there is a sign that recalls the analogous trickle of blood that isobserved on the Shroud.To Nicolotti “the attempts at transforming that drawing into a representation of the Shroudare inconceivable” 80 (80). His objections are that: “The sheet is unrolled in the sense of thewidth”; “the man of the Shroud crosses the hands, not the forearms”; “it is enough then to turnthe page in order to see the resurrected Christ with all the fingers”; the sign on the forehead“appears like an indistinct spot”; “and it does not even surprise the sindonologists that on thebody of Jesus and on the sheet the wounds from the nails, the flagellum and the lance arelacking, that on the Shroud are rendered so obvious by the bloodstains”. The interpretations ofthe sindonologists, to Nicolotti, are “exercises in fantasy” 81 (81).Clearly the artist has represented, in a stylized way, the details that struck him; neither canit be expected that, in representing the resurrected Christ, he had to continue to keep himholding the bent thumbs. In the Psalter of Ingeborg the sign on the forehead is replaced by atuft, as it is observed in many icons; and the sheet is so long that it falls back on the shouldersof the two men at the head and the feet of Jesus. In Codex Pray Nicolotti also sees that “partof the cloth falls back on the shoulders of Joseph” 82 (82), but this observation is alsomistaken, because in this case he is confusing the Shroud with the dresses of the twopersonages.In the lower scene we see the arrival of the pious women at the sepulchre, and the angelshowing them the empty shroud. According to Nicolotti, instead, “the angel indicates with thehand a sarcophagus whose cover has been removed and overlapped in diagonal, with a burialcloth over it” 83 (83). If this were so, under it we could notice the cavity of the empty sepulchrelike in the Psalter of Ingeborg; but Nicolotti thinks that the sarcophagus of Codex Pray has“two stones” 84 (84). I have never seen a sarcophagus with two covers.Still in the lower scene of Codex Pray, the upper part of the empty sheet has a drawing thatimitates the fishbone weaves structure of the Shroud, while small red crosses cover the lower77 A. PIANA, op. cit. p. 69.78 A. NICOLOTTI, op. cit. p. 127.79 A.M. DUBARLE, L’icona del “Manoscritto Pray”, in Le icone di Cristo e la Sindone, pp. 181-188.80 A. NICOLOTTI, op. cit. p. 86.81 A. NICOLOTTI, op. cit. pp. 87-88.82 A. NICOLOTTI, op. cit. p. 86.83 A. NICOLOTTI, op. cit. p. 87.84 A. NICOLOTTI, op. cit. p. 88.11
Page 2 and 3: Since I have the same book with Nic
Page 4 and 5: 12. The Templar Geoffroy de Charnay
Page 6 and 7: In this passionate tirade, Nicolott
Page 8 and 9: Nicolotti’s tirade then increases
Page 13 and 14: did wrap the body, so why is the ac

BSTS Newsletter No. 74 - Part 8 - The Shroud of Turin Website

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?